Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-12-03
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. 1887.
A Singular Opinion.

GRoRoE TiCKNoR CUBrs, Esq, OF
New York, has wide reputation as a
lawyer. His opinions always command
respectful attention from the members
of his profession. But now, as of old,
"HoNER sometimes mods. lie is out in
pamphlet in which he discusses the
question OF the guarantee against polyg-
amy which the Mormons propose to put
into their State Constitution whenever
that Territory shall become q State, and
comes 70 the following conclusion;
"Speaking as a lawyer, i have no
hesitation in saying that the compact
which the Mormon inhabitants of Utah
now offer to make with the United States
would be, in my Judgment, perfectly
valid. consistent TO our system of gov.
eminent, and efficient for everything that
can be desired"
The reader may hardly know how TO
take Mr.. CURTIs's qualifying words,
speaking as lawyer" We know him.
however, as gentleman incapable Of pro-
Tossing to hold an opinion which he does
not hold, and SO we construe the words
speaking as a lawyer" to mean that he
gives an unbiased judgment in the case.
He decides as a lawyer who has studied
the questions involved.
Bat surely it cannot be true that an
inchoate State--that is TO say, Terri
tory-can enter into a compact with the
United States that would be binding
upon the State after its admission into
the Union. If 80, then q Territory
might make an agreement that the State
should never restrict or qualify in any
manner the night of suffrage. II might
bind the State never to tax manufacturing
establishments. II might tie the hands
of the State in a hundred different ways.
The result would be a union not OF CO.
equal States but Of States some of which
would be far superior in dignity to the
others
The Radical Congress of 1870 en-
Favored to impose upon the State of
Virginia as a condition precedent to her
admission to representation in Congress
a pledge on her part that she would
never do certain things which that
corrupt and revolutionary body was
afraid she might do. OF what value is
such condition? OF none whatever. In
the first place, Virginia was entitled all
the time to representation in Congress.
She had never been out of the Union.
She was therefore rs much entitled to
representation in Congress rs any other
State in the Union. But even if she had
ever been outside the Union Congress
had no night to impose upon her terms
of admission to representation in Con-
gress which we're not required OF any
northern State. If the condition to
which we have alluded is binding upon
Virginia, then clearly ehe is not such
State as New York or Massachusetts, but
Is State sui 9cneris.
We conclude that Mr.. Curtis must be
wrong for once. he has allowed his
States-rights creed to lead him astray
this time. For, paradoxical as it may
appear to be, it is yet probably true
that he was almost forced to the conclu-
sion to which he came on the question
under discussion by his sympathy with
men whom he considered wrongfully
prosecuted, not to say outraged, by the
EDMUSDs law to abolish polygamy in
Utah. He held, no doubt, that Congress
had in passing that law usurped power
that did not belong to that body. The
remedy for this wrong the Mormons
thought they had found in the device of
applying for the admission of Utah into
the Union with a Constitution abolishing
polygamy; and Mr.. CURTIS, prejudiced
by his keen sense of their wrongs, fell
in with their notion. This at least is
our explanation OF the matter.